Reflections of a Balik-Scientist

The DOST Balik-Scientist Program (BSP) has been revived in recent years, with increasing participation from scientists based abroad. Thanks to the work of Secretary Estrella Alabastro and Assistant Secretary Malou Orijola for an increased budget, and the untiring efforts of Philippine-American Academy of Scientists and Engineers (PAASE) members like Dr. Giselle Concepcion, more scientists are returning and sharing their expertise with Philippine universities, agencies, and organizations. This past July, I was fortunate to return to the Philippines as a Balik-Scientist. My hosts were the Institute of Biological Sciences and the College of Engineering and Agro-Industrial Technology at UP Los Baños. While I have had continuing research collaborations with Philippine researchers and have consulted for Philippine-based organizations, participation in the BSP allowed me to gain more insight into the unique challenges faced by Filipino scientists and the efforts by DOST in improving Philippine science and technology. Below are some observations and thoughts on the challenges and issues faced by Filipino scientists:

1. Structural issues. Building a successful research program is like running a small business. Materials have to be procured, people have to be hired and trained to execute experiments, and profit has to be made. In the scientific enterprise, the “profit” is published papers, inventions, patents, technologies, and other output. In the process, the training produces graduates who then can form the next generation of scientists. Our problem is that our scientific businesses are hampered by the lack of start-up capital, and high prices of materials. The former is slowly being addressed by an increased DOST budget to fund research. It would seem then that university and research folks should take advantage now and prepare and submit research proposals. Unfortunately, most lab-based experimental researches need equipment, and it is tough to get funds to purchase these. For example, in molecular biology labs, a spectrophotometer is needed to quantify nucleic acids, and it is difficult to include funding for a spec in typical budgets. Sometimes, the need for “matching” funds, no matter how small (typically 10 percent of the overall budget) may stymie some researchers who do not have equipment and supplies that can count toward the match. The high cost of scientific supplies such as chemicals, reagents, enzymes, kits, etc. also puts experimental lab groups at a disadvantage. It appears that supplies coming from abroad through local importers can sometimes cost twice as much as in the US. This further puts our local researchers at a disadvantage globally. In response, researchers have become creative (e.g., recycling pipet tips, asking around for chemicals, etc.). While laudable, such creativity slows down and limits research productivity (think of the work needed to procure chemicals). Hopefully, with a more active local scientific industry, there would be greater demand, and competition among suppliers would lead to decreasing prices of chemicals and supplies. One solution to the equipment issue is for universities to provide new faculty appointments with “start-up” funding that can be used to purchase basic equipment. This would obviously be discipline-specific, but would be a big step in jumpstarting the careers of newly minted PhDs or returning scientists.

2. Changing the culture. The great push at UP and DOST agencies is to provide incentives for papers published in ISI (Thompson Scientific)-cited journals. This means increasing the quality of research so it can be published in international journals (currently, there is only one Philippine ISI-cited journal). The incentives include publication awards and cash, and “points” for promotion (and hence, salary increases). What this really means is developing a publishing culture within the university and DOST agencies. Personally, I think this is going in the right direction. However, we should recognize that any culture change will be accompanied by some pain, and should be therefore implemented in a deliberate manner. Mid-career scientists who have not been exposed to such demands may need more time to reorient their research and adjust their practices. Younger faculty more quickly grasp the new reality; their issue is how to get started given the existing resources. Higher administration officials need to understand these dynamics. Greater demands on scientists require greater financial, moral, and educational support. The best administrators are those accomplished scientists who are not personally threatened by the achievements of the faculty under their supervision, and who will mentor and encourage them to perform quality work and publish. Unfortunately, given the limits of the “promotion pie,” there exists the possibility of unhealthy internal competition. This has to be avoided, and administrators need to be sensitive to faculty morale.

3. Communication and cooperation. Unhealthy internal competition manifests itself in the lack of communication and cooperation. Hoarding research supplies, or limiting equipment use by others, are obviously bad signs. Again, this is a function of the culture within the institute or college. I have witnessed wonderful cooperation between faculty at UPLB, where different research groups share reagents on an “as needed” basis. The whole system depends on an understanding that today’s beggar (for chemicals) becomes tomorrow’s giver, and that it all evens out in the end. But this only works in settings where faculty and resources are about equal. The lack of cooperation also is counter-productive. Today’s science questions need a multidisciplinary approach, and research teams with individual faculty complementing each other’s skills are more poised to produce. Sometimes, “hot” research topics are pursued by different groups; perhaps more communication among these groups will lessen direct competition, reduce duplication of efforts, and allow more efficient use of time and money. Again, this is a culture change best accomplished if individual researchers and administrators are on the same page, and if the right incentives are put in place. 

These are the observations of someone who worked with Philippine scientists intensively for a short time, and the structural and personal issues I saw may not be totally accurate. However, I did see quality work being performed, and young researchers excited about science. I encourage those scientists based abroad to join the DOST Balik-Scientist program and share their expertise. It was a fruitful experience for me, and I hope to be part of it in the future.

* * *

Francis L. de los Reyes III is an associate professor of Environmental Engineering at North Carolina State University. He obtained degrees from the University of the Philippines in Los Banos, Iowa State University, and the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. He conducts research and teaches classes in environmental biotechnology, biological waste treatment, and molecular microbial ecology. He is a member of the Philippine American Academy of Science and Engineering (PAASE). He is a 2008 Balik-Scientist of the DOST. Email him at [email protected]